BROVKINA v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights)

Last Updated on April 24, 2019 by LawEuro

Communicated on 9 January 2019


Application no.8545/12
Irina VasilyevnaBROVKINA
against Russia
lodged on 18 January 2012


The applicant, Ms Irina VasilyevnaBrovkina, is a Russian national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Sochi, Krasnodar region.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

In July 2008 the applicant’s son bought two rooms in a three-room communal flat in Sochi.

On 11 November 2008 the applicant was registered as living in that flat.

1.  Expropriation proceedings

In 2011 the Krasnodar regional authorities (“the regional authorities”) brought court proceedings against the applicant’s son, seeking the expropriation of the communal flat (including the two rooms belonging to the applicant’s son) for the construction of a railway, in exchange for compensation. The applicant acted as her son’s representative in those proceedings.

On 20 May 2011 the applicant’s son asked for an adjournment of the proceedings on the grounds that his mother had fallen sick, and he provided a medical certificate.

On 23 May 2011 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Sochi (“the District Court”) examined the case in the absence of both the applicant and her son and granted the regional authorities’ claim. The court held as follows:

“…two rooms, nos. 1 and 2, having a total surface area of 32.8 sq. m in a three-room communal flat, no. 7, at 60 Voykov Street, in the Tsentralnyy District, Sochi, which belong to VitaliyAleksandrovichBrovkin, should be expropriated by the Russian Federation for federal needs by way of buying out VitaliyAleksandrovichBrovkin’s interest and transferring to his bank account a sum of money in the amount of 2,605,377 roubles [RUB].

The government-owned company Olympstroy shall transfer, within seven days, a sum of money in the amount of RUB 2,605,377 to VitaliyAleksandrovichBrovkin’s bank account.

VitaliyAleksandrovichBrovkin’s ownership of two rooms, nos. 1 and 2, of a total surface area of 32.8 sq.m. in a three-room communal flat at 60 Voykov Street, Tsentralnyy District, Sochi shall be terminated.

The present judgment shall be executed immediately…”

On 26 May 2011 the bailiffs initiated enforcement proceedings. On the same day a bailiff came to the applicant’s and her son’s place of residence accompanied by two soldiers with rifles, informed them of the judgment of 23 May 2011 and ordered them to vacate the flat by the end of the day on 27 May 2011. He said that the block of flats would be demolished the next day.

On 27 May 2011 the applicant and her son vacated the flat.

On an unspecified date the regional authorities applied to the District Court with a request for an additional decision to be adopted in the case, in so far as they had not asked in their initial statement of claim for an order obliging the applicant’s son to vacate the flat.

On 30 May 2011 the District Court adopted an additional decision. In particular, the court held as follows:

“Mr VitaliyAleksandrovichBrovkin shall vacate rooms nos. 1 and 2, having a total surface of 32.8 sq. m, in a three-room flat, no. 7, at 60 Voykova Street, Tsentralnyy District, Sochi, within ten days of the transfer of the funds to his bank account…”

On the same date the block of flats in question was demolished.

On 24 June 2011 the compensation for the expropriated rooms was transferred to the applicant’s son’s bank account.

2.  Proceedings against the bailiff

On 28 May 2011 the applicant brought court proceedings against the bailiffs. She submitted that neither the judgment of 23 May 2011 nor the bailiff’s decision to initiate enforcement proceedings on 26 May 2011 had indicated that she had to be evicted from her son’s flat. Therefore, the bailiff’s actions had been unlawful.

On 6 June 2011 the District Court dismissed her claim.

On 19 July 2011 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld that decision on appeal.


The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that on 26 and 27 May 2011 the bailiff evicted her from her home without any court order and that the domestic courts have refused to declare his actions unlawful.


1.  Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?

2.  If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *